As many of you know, I am an activist against the abuses of the Child Protective Services system, known by various names in various states. But along with my laundry list of grievances, I have an equally long laundry list of solutions. What follows is at least a portion of those solutions.

1. End mandatory reporting, anonymous reporting and the quota system:

The mandatory reporting system is a good example of a concept that looks very good on the outside, until you take a closer look. What it does, though, is basically express a lack of trust in educators, caregivers, and physicians to make intelligent and objective decisions, despite the fact that they have often spent a great deal of time and money preparing themselves for their profession and are, for the most part, consumate professionals. When a case comes in that they are pretty sure is NOT child abuse, but that the state mandates they must report (example: a child with brittle bone disease comes in with a broken bone), they are essentially stuck between a rock and a hard place, because NOT reporting means the potential loss of their license. Similarly, CPS workers are given a concern from a mandated reporter and they are required to act on it. The end result is that often a situation snowballs when no problem existed in the first place. If a CPS worker writes off every case unfounded, their supervisor will question their competence. Therefore, they spend a lot of time pursuing false leads, which leads not only to the persecuting of completely innocent families but also abandonment of serious cases that linger in the case worker's inbox.

Anonymous reporting had a similarly benign genesis. The idea was to protect individuals from retaliation by families for reporting. The problem is, some cases NEED retaliation, and ironically, anonymous reporting has become an AGENT for abuse and harassment. Neighbours will call CPS, who again, are stuck in the very difficult position of having to investigate these charges, no matter how spurious, and there are very few avenues towards retaliation. Also, an anonymous complaint cannot be used as evidence in a criminal proceeding, nor can evidence gathered solely on the basis of said anonymous tip. As a result, many individuals who are truly guilty of abuse or neglect "slip through the cracks" because there's not enough evidence to prosecute.

A simpler solution to anonymous reporting would be a "shield law" which allows CPS to gather the name and contact information of the reporter (and verify it before further investigation can proceed) but to protect it from publication except upon subpoena by either the prosecution or defense. This allows law enforcement officials to more closely track individuals to build a case for harassment, which is illegal. All reports should be taken as sworn depositions so that the penalties already in place for perjury apply to false accusations and therefore no further legislation needs to be written regarding these penalties.

The quota system operates by paying CPS a "bounty" for each child taken into custody, for each day they are held in custody. In California, the law is especially draconian, as it pays for an INCREASE in intakes from the previous year. The problem with this system should be obvious to anyone: an agency looking to increase its budget in the wake of budget cuts in social services agency will look to seize more children in order to pay the bills. This won't be done overtly, mind you, but in their own self interests, they will scrutinize cases more closely to find reasons to remove the children.

2. Stop Requiring CPS to work as law enforcement:

CPS agents are not law enforcement. They do not have the training, the legal standing, or the tools to properly conduct an investigation. What the better trained CPS agents are trained to do is social work. So let them do that.

The role of CPS in an investigation should be to protect the interests of the children and allow law enforcement to handle the physical evidence. Because they are (in theory) better trained in interviewing techniques as regards children, CPS should handle all interviews with the children, but only under the direct supervision of trained law enforcement. Taking the decisions out of the hands of CPS as to removal of the child also allows the CPS worker to establish trust with the children, and even the parents, rather than relegating them to the "bad guy" role. This is especially important in the countless cases where a family could be helped by CPS intervention and the access to certain programs that CPS could offer, because the family could access these programs without a de facto admission of guilt.

3. Protect the rights of the family:

The way CPS currently operates hurts families. CPS needs a better system to protect the rights of the families in an accusation by refusing to allow the publication of any information about their investigation, including the fact that it is even active. While there's no remedy for small town gossip, CPS can and should make reasonable efforts to contact families through letters and/or phone calls before appearing at their home, where their manner of dress and materials they are carrying make what they are doing well known. When they do have to contact them in person, their contact should be limited to delivering a request for a family to speak with them as regards their case, rather than a lengthy visit to the home. ONLY if the family is completely uncooperative with the investigation should the worker attempt to interview them at their home.

The family should also have the right to legal counsel earlier in the investigatory process. As the law stands, a court does not have to appoint an attorney for indigent clients until CPS begins action to permanently remove the child from the home. Not only does this allow the family to accidentally harm their case greatly by voluntarily allowing intrusions protected by the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments to the United States Constitution, it also allows more cases to linger, as CPS is reluctant to begin actions for permanent removal in cases where abuse or neglect is actually provable because of the need to provide an attorney (and because of the money gained from the quota system).

I believe a family should have the right to legal counsel from the very moment CPS requests to step across the threshhold into the family's private home. Because the stakes are so high once you have allowed a government agent into your home, the family should have legal counsel to determine what is and is not admissable for CPS to investigate. This would add to the costs of an investigation, certainly, but the added costs would act as a deterrent to pursuing false allegations.

The latter position is reinforced VERY firmly by the fourth amendment which allows us to be secure in our homes from illegal search and seizure and clearly establishes the standards upon which a warrant shall issue. The fourth amendment has been held to be non negotiable even for social workers in repeated court decisions.

The CPS agent should have the responsibility of informing a family of ALL of their legal rights prior to their investigation, similar to the "Miranda" rights of a criminal. As it stands now, criminals have greater protection under the law than families accused of abuse or neglect.

4. Decriminalize Poverty:

Someone reading this without reading my other materials will wonder what I'm talking about, but the simple truth is, poverty is the chief reason for child removals in the United States. Children are routinely removed for lack of adequate medical care when the family cannot reasonably AFFORD adequate medical care, or for the lack of utilities in the home, despite the fact that the deposits for such utilities are cost prohibitive for some families, added to the fact that families raised their children well for thousands of years without these luxuries.

While there may be government programs to provide some of the answers, many families do not wish to avail themselves of these government programs, often on religious grounds. Because CPS is not qualified to determine what does and does not constitute a valid religious belief (nor, in fact, is ANY government agent; forcing an individual to express an alignment with a specific creed to gain access to the protections afforded by the first amendment, is, in fact, an establishment of religion and is expressly forbidden by the aforementioned amendment), they should not be able to use an unwillingness on the part of a family to obtain government help as a sole reason for removal of a child. While there are extreme examples that would merit CPS intervention, there are almost always other remedies besides a family's unwillingness to access governmental assistance.

5. Strict Rules for Child Removal:

I agree that there are some very valid reasons why a child may need to be removed immediately from a home when an investigation is conducted. I've read too many cases to think otherwise. But when a child is removed, there should be strict rules for removal, including, but not limited to:

A) An emergency removal is only valid for 72 hours. Within that time, a hearing MUST be convened to determine if the removal should continue.

Until a CRIMINAL determination of guilt is obtained, a parent must have regular, reasonable access to the child in a supervised setting unless otherwise enjoined by court order (once again, issued in a CRIMINAL, not a CIVIL, court).

C) The accused should have a right to a speedy and public trial in accordance with the sixth amendment, and any charges of abuse or neglect must be charged in criminal court proceedings

D) Within 24 hours following a "not guilty" verdict in such a proceeding, the child shall be returned home

E) Unless a child is voluntarily surrendered, parental rights should not be permanently terminated without a criminal conviction of abuse or neglect, specifically in the case(s) investigated which prompted the child's initial removal.

6. Educate social workers AND the public:

Social workers are often unaware of the rights of citizens. They are not constitutional experts, nor should they be required to be. Strict training should be required of any CPS worker specifically underlining the rights they do and do not have. The public, likewise, should be informed of the penalties for making false statements to accuse innocent families, up to and including imprisonment for perjury.

We have a very definite need to protect the most vulnerable elements of our society, specifically our children and elderly. That obligation is unquestionable. But we MUST do it within the confines of the United States Constitution and with respect to the long established principle of being innocent until proven guilty that guides our legal system. I believe that what I propose is a good starting point to restoring the rights of our families and limiting the power of big government.